Sounds like the JSF is just turning into a very expensive 'F-18' at this rate

Not so stealthy: the $15b fighters

By Craig Skehan and Tom AllardMarch 14, 2006

THE ability of Australia's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to evade detection and enemy attack has been substantially downgraded by the US Defence Department.

And a Liberal MP and former senior defence analyst, Dennis Jensen, warns that the fighters - at $15 billion the most expensive defence purchase in Australia's history - will be unable to maintain air combat dominance.

"Do we really want our pilots to be caught in a knife fight in a telephone booth with an aircraft that, aerodynamically, is incapable of mixing it with the threat?" he said in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry.

A crucial aspect of the fighter's "stealth capability" - radio frequency signatures - has been downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", according to the US Defence Department website.

Peter Goon, a former RAAF flight test engineer, said that would mean the difference between it appearing as a "marble and a beach ball" on enemy radar. The problem with the fighter, Dr Jensen says, is that it can be relatively easily detected from the rear.

A Federal Government source conceded yesterday that the stealth capability definitions had been changed, but maintained that the "design requirements" for the fighter to "avoid detection" had not.

Signs that the stealth capability had been lowered first emerged last year, when key performance indicators on the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter

website changed. The manufacturer of the aircraft, Lockheed Martin, insisted repeatedly to the Herald that the reported shift was an error. Australia's Defence Department also maintained there had been no change.

But those assurances have proven false. When the Herald contacted the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter program office in Washington, a spokeswoman said the latest table on its website was correct. "There is no reason to pull it from there," she said.

A Lockheed Martin spokesman said yesterday: "We will have to defer to our clients, the US Government, if that is their decision."

The downgrading in the stealth capability is only one issue that concerns Dr Jensen, who has a doctorate in applied physics and used to work at the Defence Science and Technology Organisation.

He said the Joint Strike Fighter could not match the Russian-built Sukhoi strike jets operated by air forces around the region in important respects.

It falls well short of the F-111 jet it is replacing in its long-range strike ability and would require air-to-air refuelling that would leave it and support aircraft vulnerable to enemy missiles and aircraft, he said.

He also said the fighter would almost certainly be more expensive than the Defence Department admits.

"[The Joint Strike] is essentially a second tier bomb truck. It lacks the necessary aerodynamics to defeat the [Sukhoi] Flankers, never mind future aircraft that may proliferate," he told the parliamentary inquiry into Australia's regional air superiority.

The Sukhoi family of Russian aircraft are, or will be, operated by most Asian air forces, including China, Indonesia, Malaysia and India.

It is understood Dr Jensen's concerns are shared by another Liberal MP, David Fawcett. Before he entered politics at the last election, Mr Fawcett was the commander of the Defence Force's flight test and evaluation centre.

Dr Jensen and Mr Fawcett raised their concerns with the Minister for Defence, Brendan Nelson, last month. Dr Jensen told the Herald yesterday he agonised before breaking with the discipline of the Howard Government to lodge his submission, but the issue was too important.

Yup. They already have some bugs so that would be an easy transition. As much as I like the JSF, I can't fault that logic either. I can't see the need for both of the LO aircraft...not at those prices.

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." Dwight D. Eisenhower

Color me surprised. If this is the case, I guess the SuperBug really would be a better choice for future purchases than to continue with the JSF. We already have it, it is currently being built, its capabilities aren't half-bad, all the development is paid for, and with upgrades over time it will still be way cheaper in the long run vs. the F-35.

I'm disappointed...but also a realist.

Grandfathering weapons only puts off until tomorrow what tyranny cannot accomplish today.

the F-35 should be cut and the funding used to buy more F-22's. The F-22 is a better jet that is alredy finished with R&D and ready to buy off the shelf.

I see the F-35 easily becoming another Comanchee or A-12. This pig will be a money pit until the day it dies. It's a jet designed by comittee, which has taken all the piss poor attributes from all the services and put it into one jet.

The Air Force version would be the only really effective version, but it looks like the AF is going to have its version bastardized by the Navy/Marines. Instead of getting a fast, light F-35, the AF will be saddled with a pig with HEAVY Navy landing gear, and a HEAVY VTOL system from the Marine version of the jet.

this is just another step in the move to unmanned vehicles.. part of rummy's vision. why build something that needs a pilot at all. hasn't it been stated there will be no more manned fighters in britain after the next 'big thing'?

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:the F-35 should be cut and the funding used to buy more F-22's. The F-22 is a better jet that is alredy finished with R&D and ready to buy off the shelf.

The problem is the USAF doesn't have a replacement for the F-16 lined up. I'd say they'd be fine with the SuperBug.

I see the F-35 easily becoming another Comanchee or A-12. This pig will be a money pit until the day it dies. It's a jet designed by comittee, which has taken all the piss poor attributes from all the services and put it into one jet.

F-111 would be a better analogy.

The Air Force version would be the only really effective version,

Actually, by all accounts the USN version would have been the most effective. It would have a larger payload an longer legs. IIRC the USAF was looking to go to this version at one point. The USAF has even considered the USMC version.

but it looks like the AF is going to have its version bastardized by the Navy/Marines. Instead of getting a fast, light F-35, the AF will be saddled with a pig with HEAVY Navy landing gear, and a HEAVY VTOL system from the Marine version of the jet.

The USAF version would not have the gear nor the STOLV system.

What a waste

"You can lead a horse to water, but you shouldn't have to stick your head up its ass and suck to make it drink."

Originally Posted By vito113:Just to clarify… US DoD has downgraded the LO specs for the F-35 and that applies to the US ones as well.

'A marble to a beach ball' means the F-35 is not significantly stealthier than the SuperBug now… and that was not the original sales pitch.

ANdy

Not entirely true, vito. The F-35 is still better than the Rhino in stealthiness. As I read the article, it said that the increased radar signature was from the back - that is not really as big a deal as they make it out to be. Stealthiness is also not the end-all, be-all of tactical aircraft - it is simply a tool that makes our lives easier (and longer).

As for it not being able to compete with the Flankers (Su-27 family), I have no doubt that it is unable to compete with them in some regimes. But, let's be honest, it's hardly in the same class of aircraft. The F-15C and the F-22 are designed to take out flankers. The JSF is designed for other things - things that happen after all the flankers are dead. That, however, does not mean that when a flanker shows up on radar, the JSF will fall out of the sky in fear. It means that it would do what any medium-sized fighter would do - it would call its buddies (the F-15s, Rhinos or F-22s) to come deal with the problem.

No aircraft will be the Jack-of-all trades - they are part of a multi-layer concept of strike. Again, the concern commonly seen on this board about this aircraft (like the concern about the F-22 and the Rhino) is rooted in a basic and complete misunderstanding of how modern wars are fought and how these aircraft are meant to be employed. Matt

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:the F-35 should be cut and the funding used to buy more F-22's. The F-22 is a better jet that is alredy finished with R&D and ready to buy off the shelf.

I see the F-35 easily becoming another Comanchee or A-12. This pig will be a money pit until the day it dies. It's a jet designed by comittee, which has taken all the piss poor attributes from all the services and put it into one jet.

The Air Force version would be the only really effective version, but it looks like the AF is going to have its version bastardized by the Navy/Marines. Instead of getting a fast, light F-35, the AF will be saddled with a pig with HEAVY Navy landing gear, and a HEAVY VTOL system from the Marine version of the jet.

Could the F-23 have delivered some of what the F-35 is supposed to? I seem to recall that they were considering it again as a bomb truck.

It was a neat looking aircraft. Anyone got pics?

-K

right now NASA owns both of those jets. I have also heard that they were thinking of making this into a bomber, but i have also heard they will develop a delta wing F-22 to do it.

Personally, I think the USAF has already bought its last human piloted bomber. bombing is very easily accomplished with UAV's, and for much cheaper. hell, they could make a cruise missle that drops bombs on several targets, then crashes into the last one.

air to air will be the last thing to go UAV just because of the very dynamic nature of air combat. there may be an air to air fighter after the F-22, but i think once our big 3 bombers are gone, that will be it for manned bomb trucks.

They want to replace far far too many aircraft. Replacing a F-111 with a F-35 seems to make as much sense as replacing the A-10 with an F-35.

Remember the bomber version of the F-23 that was being tossed about? There's your bomb truck.

The only thing anybody should consider replacing with a F-35 is the Harrier and the F-16. And quite frankly, since the F-16 is far far cheaper than the F-35 and has a pretty good record as being pretty versitile, I don't see why we shouldn't just keep on upgrading the 16.

They want to replace far far too many aircraft. Replacing a F-111 with a F-35 seems to make as much sense as replacing the A-10 with an F-35.

Remember the bomber version of the F-23 that was being tossed about? There's your bomb truck.

The only thing anybody should consider replacing with a F-35 is the Harrier and the F-16. And quite frankly, since the F-16 is far far cheaper than the F-35 and has a pretty good record as being pretty versitile, I don't see why we shouldn't just keep on upgrading the 16.

agreed!!!

Why not make a "Super Viper" type jet like the F-18E? Take your current Viper, tweak it, make it stealthier, not F-117/F-22 stealthy, but enough to get the job done, and there you go. I bet the flyaway cost would be a quarter of the F-35, and could be ready in half the time

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:the F-35 should be cut and the funding used to buy more F-22's. The F-22 is a better jet that is alredy finished with R&D and ready to buy off the shelf.

I see the F-35 easily becoming another Comanchee or A-12. This pig will be a money pit until the day it dies. It's a jet designed by comittee, which has taken all the piss poor attributes from all the services and put it into one jet.

The Air Force version would be the only really effective version, but it looks like the AF is going to have its version bastardized by the Navy/Marines. Instead of getting a fast, light F-35, the AF will be saddled with a pig with HEAVY Navy landing gear, and a HEAVY VTOL system from the Marine version of the jet.

What a waste

+1 on using the money for F-22.

JSF is a POS

So, you're either an aero engineer or you're a tactical pilot. Which is it? I'm all for more money for the F-22, but not at the expense of a good replacement for the F-16, the baby hornet and the harrier. The JSF is hardly a POS.

We have A LOT of aging aircraft in our inventory - we MUST replace them soon. And the F-22/Rhino combination isn't going to cut it. Matt

Originally Posted By vito113:Just to clarify… US DoD has downgraded the LO specs for the F-35 and that applies to the US ones as well.

'A marble to a beach ball' means the F-35 is not significantly stealthier than the SuperBug now… and that was not the original sales pitch.

ANdy

Not entirely true, vito. The F-35 is still better than the Rhino in stealthiness. As I read the article, it said that the increased radar signature was from the back - that is not really as big a deal as they make it out to be. Stealthiness is also not the end-all, be-all of tactical aircraft - it is simply a tool that makes our lives easier (and longer).

As for it not being able to compete with the Flankers (Su-27 family), I have no doubt that it is unable to compete with them in some regimes. But, let's be honest, it's hardly in the same class of aircraft. The F-15C and the F-22 are designed to take out flankers. The JSF is designed for other things - things that happen after all the flankers are dead. That, however, does not mean that when a flanker shows up on radar, the JSF will fall out of the sky in fear. It means that it would do what any medium-sized fighter would do - it would call its buddies (the F-15s, Rhinos or F-22s) to come deal with the problem.

No aircraft will be the Jack-of-all trades - they are part of a multi-layer concept of strike. Again, the concern commonly seen on this board about this aircraft (like the concern about the F-22 and the Rhino) is rooted in a basic and complete misunderstanding of how modern wars are fought and how these aircraft are meant to be employed. Matt

This arm-chair pilot thinks the JSF's strength will be it's electronics. Not sure how hard it would be to take The F-35's tech and retro-fit it to the Super-Hornet. I know it was mentioned awhile back that a future block of the Superbug would include even more stealth and I think there has been talk of uprated engines as well.YMMV.

They want to replace far far too many aircraft. Replacing a F-111 with a F-35 seems to make as much sense as replacing the A-10 with an F-35.

Remember the bomber version of the F-23 that was being tossed about? There's your bomb truck.

The only thing anybody should consider replacing with a F-35 is the Harrier and the F-16. And quite frankly, since the F-16 is far far cheaper than the F-35 and has a pretty good record as being pretty versitile, I don't see why we shouldn't just keep on upgrading the 16.

agreed!!!

Why not make a "Super Viper" type jet like the F-18E? Take your current Viper, tweak it, make it stealthier, not F-117/F-22 stealthy, but enough to get the job done, and there you go. I bet the flyaway cost would be a quarter of the F-35, and could be ready in half the time

Why is everyone so scared to build a new airframe?!? The super hornet is a great airplane, but we do NOT need to make a habit of "supering" all of our existing airframes - that will lead to technical and tactical stagnation. Matt

Originally Posted By vito113:Just to clarify… US DoD has downgraded the LO specs for the F-35 and that applies to the US ones as well.

'A marble to a beach ball' means the F-35 is not significantly stealthier than the SuperBug now… and that was not the original sales pitch.

ANdy

Not entirely true, vito. The F-35 is still better than the Rhino in stealthiness. As I read the article, it said that the increased radar signature was from the back - that is not really as big a deal as they make it out to be. Stealthiness is also not the end-all, be-all of tactical aircraft - it is simply a tool that makes our lives easier (and longer).

As for it not being able to compete with the Flankers (Su-27 family), I have no doubt that it is unable to compete with them in some regimes. But, let's be honest, it's hardly in the same class of aircraft. The F-15C and the F-22 are designed to take out flankers. The JSF is designed for other things - things that happen after all the flankers are dead. That, however, does not mean that when a flanker shows up on radar, the JSF will fall out of the sky in fear. It means that it would do what any medium-sized fighter would do - it would call its buddies (the F-15s, Rhinos or F-22s) to come deal with the problem.

No aircraft will be the Jack-of-all trades - they are part of a multi-layer concept of strike. Again, the concern commonly seen on this board about this aircraft (like the concern about the F-22 and the Rhino) is rooted in a basic and complete misunderstanding of how modern wars are fought and how these aircraft are meant to be employed. Matt

This arm-chair pilot thinks the JSF's strength will be it's electronics. Not sure how hard it would be to take The F-35's tech and retro-fit it to the Super-Hornet. I know it was mentioned awhile back that a future block of the Superbug would include even more stealth and I think there has been talk of uprated engines as well.YMMV.

I can't talk much about future stealth technology, but there ARE some engine upgrades that COULD be had. Right now, I think all we'd really like is straight pylons and a civilian ILS (for cross country's)Matt

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:the F-35 should be cut and the funding used to buy more F-22's. The F-22 is a better jet that is alredy finished with R&D and ready to buy off the shelf.

I see the F-35 easily becoming another Comanchee or A-12. This pig will be a money pit until the day it dies. It's a jet designed by comittee, which has taken all the piss poor attributes from all the services and put it into one jet.

The Air Force version would be the only really effective version, but it looks like the AF is going to have its version bastardized by the Navy/Marines. Instead of getting a fast, light F-35, the AF will be saddled with a pig with HEAVY Navy landing gear, and a HEAVY VTOL system from the Marine version of the jet.

What a waste

+1 on using the money for F-22.

JSF is a POS

So, you're either an aero engineer or you're a tactical pilot. Which is it? I'm all for more money for the F-22, but not at the expense of a good replacement for the F-16, the baby hornet and the harrier. The JSF is hardly a POS.

We have A LOT of aging aircraft in our inventory - we MUST replace them soon. And the F-22/Rhino combination isn't going to cut it. Matt

Naw, I’m an "IT liaison" weenie. I've got nothing to do with flying or building either aircraft.

JSF X-35 A,B,C,...,Z is pissing money down an apparently very deep hole. And as others have said, J-UCAS is obviously where things are headed for the strike/bomber role anyway. Why waste time/money?

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:Why not make a "Super Viper" type jet like the F-18E? Take your current Viper, tweak it, make it stealthier, not F-117/F-22 stealthy, but enough to get the job done, and there you go. I bet the flyaway cost would be a quarter of the F-35, and could be ready in half the time

Didn't they do just that with the "Agile Falcon" program some years ago? I don't believe it went anywhere, however.

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:Why not make a "Super Viper" type jet like the F-18E? Take your current Viper, tweak it, make it stealthier, not F-117/F-22 stealthy, but enough to get the job done, and there you go. I bet the flyaway cost would be a quarter of the F-35, and could be ready in half the time

Didn't they do just that with the "Agile Falcon" program some years ago? I don't believe it went anywhere, however.

They've played with a few F-16 concepts over the years including a delta winged one back in the early 90's. It was faster, could carry more, but it was deemed that it would not be needed at the time. I think it should be re-visited.

and valheru21: i'm NOT an aero-engineer, but do hope to be a tactical pilot in 2 years or so. I start USAF pilot school in a few months.

Originally Posted By valheru21:Why is everyone so scared to build a new airframe?!? The super hornet is a great airplane, but we do NOT need to make a habit of "supering" all of our existing airframes - that will lead to technical and tactical stagnation. Matt

It's not a matter of being scared to build a new airframe. It's a matter of not pouring money into a new airframe that offers no significant advantages over the airframes in service now. If there is significant advantages over, say, the SuperBug, then by all means produce it.

The really funny thing about the original article? They're using the F-35 to replace the F-111, and they're worried about the F-35's ability to mix it up with Su-27s? Like the old Aardvark could win an A2A with a Sukhoi.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you shouldn't have to stick your head up its ass and suck to make it drink."

Originally Posted By vito113:Just to clarify… US DoD has downgraded the LO specs for the F-35 and that applies to the US ones as well.

'A marble to a beach ball' means the F-35 is not significantly stealthier than the SuperBug now… and that was not the original sales pitch.

ANdy

Not entirely true, vito. The F-35 is still better than the Rhino in stealthiness. As I read the article, it said that the increased radar signature was from the back - that is not really as big a deal as they make it out to be. Stealthiness is also not the end-all, be-all of tactical aircraft - it is simply a tool that makes our lives easier (and longer).

As for it not being able to compete with the Flankers (Su-27 family), I have no doubt that it is unable to compete with them in some regimes. But, let's be honest, it's hardly in the same class of aircraft. The F-15C and the F-22 are designed to take out flankers. The JSF is designed for other things - things that happen after all the flankers are dead. That, however, does not mean that when a flanker shows up on radar, the JSF will fall out of the sky in fear. It means that it would do what any medium-sized fighter would do - it would call its buddies (the F-15s, Rhinos or F-22s) to come deal with the problem.

No aircraft will be the Jack-of-all trades - they are part of a multi-layer concept of strike. Again, the concern commonly seen on this board about this aircraft (like the concern about the F-22 and the Rhino) is rooted in a basic and complete misunderstanding of how modern wars are fought and how these aircraft are meant to be employed. Matt

The operative term here is 'significantly better'… the whole sales pitch of the F-35 over the F/A-18 was that it would be 'significantly (orders of magnitude) better than the Bug. The Bug is in the 'Beachball' Class, the F-35 was supposed to be a credible 'first strike' plane. Well it is, but now it's looking like its 'good' but not as 'good' as the sales pitch was implying.

ANdy

IATL! http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=438761

I saw that. i said to myself wtf?! The_Beer_Slayer

PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE AFRAID OF THEIR GOVERNMENTS. GOVERNMENTS SHOULD BE AFRAID OF THEIR PEOPLE.

Originally Posted By valheru21:Why is everyone so scared to build a new airframe?!? The super hornet is a great airplane, but we do NOT need to make a habit of "supering" all of our existing airframes - that will lead to technical and tactical stagnation. Matt

It's not a matter of being scared to build a new airframe. It's a matter of not pouring money into a new airframe that offers no significant advantages over the airframes in service now. If there is significant advantages over, say, the SuperBug, then by all means produce it.

The really funny thing about the original article? They're using the F-35 to replace the F-111, and they're worried about the F-35's ability to mix it up with Su-27s? Like the old Aardvark could win an A2A with a Sukhoi.

The Ardvaark wouldn't have need to go A2A… it was faster than the speed o' heat! The F-35 is many things, but 'fast' is not one of them.

F-111 pilots I have spoken with in the past reckon nothing could catch them on the deck.

Australia beef is they were sold the F-35 on the basis it was nearly as stealthy as the F-22 (which they really wanted) but a whole lot cheaper. Now it seems it's not going to be significantly cheaper than an F-22 or not a great deal stealthier than the Hornets they already fly.

ANdy

IATL! http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=438761

I saw that. i said to myself wtf?! The_Beer_Slayer

PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE AFRAID OF THEIR GOVERNMENTS. GOVERNMENTS SHOULD BE AFRAID OF THEIR PEOPLE.

Originally Posted By vito113:Just to clarify… US DoD has downgraded the LO specs for the F-35 and that applies to the US ones as well.

'A marble to a beach ball' means the F-35 is not significantly stealthier than the SuperBug now… and that was not the original sales pitch.

ANdy

Not entirely true, vito. The F-35 is still better than the Rhino in stealthiness. As I read the article, it said that the increased radar signature was from the back - that is not really as big a deal as they make it out to be. Stealthiness is also not the end-all, be-all of tactical aircraft - it is simply a tool that makes our lives easier (and longer).

As for it not being able to compete with the Flankers (Su-27 family), I have no doubt that it is unable to compete with them in some regimes. But, let's be honest, it's hardly in the same class of aircraft. The F-15C and the F-22 are designed to take out flankers. The JSF is designed for other things - things that happen after all the flankers are dead. That, however, does not mean that when a flanker shows up on radar, the JSF will fall out of the sky in fear. It means that it would do what any medium-sized fighter would do - it would call its buddies (the F-15s, Rhinos or F-22s) to come deal with the problem.

No aircraft will be the Jack-of-all trades - they are part of a multi-layer concept of strike. Again, the concern commonly seen on this board about this aircraft (like the concern about the F-22 and the Rhino) is rooted in a basic and complete misunderstanding of how modern wars are fought and how these aircraft are meant to be employed. Matt

The operative term here is 'significantly better'… the whole sales pitch of the F-35 over the F/A-18 was that it would be 'significantly (orders of magnitude) better than the Bug. The Bug is in the 'Beachball' Class, the F-35 was supposed to be a credible 'first strike' plane. Well it is, but now it's looking like its 'good' but not as 'good' as the sales pitch was implying.

ANdy

I don't recall that sales pitch (which is not to say that it didn't exist - just that I didn't hear it). The JSF is not meant to replace the Rhino - it is meant to replace the baby hornets, vipers and harriers. The JSF and Rhino are meant to work together. Matt

Originally Posted By valheru21:Why is everyone so scared to build a new airframe?!? The super hornet is a great airplane, but we do NOT need to make a habit of "supering" all of our existing airframes - that will lead to technical and tactical stagnation. Matt

It's not a matter of being scared to build a new airframe. It's a matter of not pouring money into a new airframe that offers no significant advantages over the airframes in service now. If there is significant advantages over, say, the SuperBug, then by all means produce it.

The really funny thing about the original article? They're using the F-35 to replace the F-111, and they're worried about the F-35's ability to mix it up with Su-27s? Like the old Aardvark could win an A2A with a Sukhoi.

The Ardvaark wouldn't have need to go A2A… it was faster than the speed o' heat! The F-35 is many things, but 'fast' is not one of them.

F-111 pilots I have spoken with in the past reckon nothing could catch them on the deck.

ANdy

IMO that's misplaced confidence.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you shouldn't have to stick your head up its ass and suck to make it drink."

Originally Posted By valheru21:Why is everyone so scared to build a new airframe?!? The super hornet is a great airplane, but we do NOT need to make a habit of "supering" all of our existing airframes - that will lead to technical and tactical stagnation. Matt

It's not a matter of being scared to build a new airframe. It's a matter of not pouring money into a new airframe that offers no significant advantages over the airframes in service now. If there is significant advantages over, say, the SuperBug, then by all means produce it.

The really funny thing about the original article? They're using the F-35 to replace the F-111, and they're worried about the F-35's ability to mix it up with Su-27s? Like the old Aardvark could win an A2A with a Sukhoi.

The Ardvaark wouldn't have need to go A2A… it was faster than the speed o' heat! The F-35 is many things, but 'fast' is not one of them.

F-111 pilots I have spoken with in the past reckon nothing could catch them on the deck.

Originally Posted By valheru21:Why is everyone so scared to build a new airframe?!? The super hornet is a great airplane, but we do NOT need to make a habit of "supering" all of our existing airframes - that will lead to technical and tactical stagnation. Matt

It's not a matter of being scared to build a new airframe. It's a matter of not pouring money into a new airframe that offers no significant advantages over the airframes in service now. If there is significant advantages over, say, the SuperBug, then by all means produce it.

The really funny thing about the original article? They're using the F-35 to replace the F-111, and they're worried about the F-35's ability to mix it up with Su-27s? Like the old Aardvark could win an A2A with a Sukhoi.

The Ardvaark wouldn't have need to go A2A… it was faster than the speed o' heat! The F-35 is many things, but 'fast' is not one of them.

F-111 pilots I have spoken with in the past reckon nothing could catch them on the deck.

ANdy

IMO that's misplaced confidence.

Remember the speed runs that the Iraqis tried with the MIG-25 in GW1?

The Saudis shot them down before they ever got over the water.

Misplaced is right.

A MIG 25 cannot fly high supersonic at 50 feet... and it was two Mirage F1's the Saudis shot down.

ANdy

IATL! http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=438761

I saw that. i said to myself wtf?! The_Beer_Slayer

PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE AFRAID OF THEIR GOVERNMENTS. GOVERNMENTS SHOULD BE AFRAID OF THEIR PEOPLE.

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:Why not make a "Super Viper" type jet like the F-18E? Take your current Viper, tweak it, make it stealthier, not F-117/F-22 stealthy, but enough to get the job done, and there you go. I bet the flyaway cost would be a quarter of the F-35, and could be ready in half the time

Didn't they do just that with the "Agile Falcon" program some years ago? I don't believe it went anywhere, however.

They've played with a few F-16 concepts over the years including a delta winged one back in the early 90's. It was faster, could carry more, but it was deemed that it would not be needed at the time. I think it should be re-visited.

and valheru21: i'm NOT an aero-engineer, but do hope to be a tactical pilot in 2 years or so. I start USAF pilot school in a few months.

Congrats! where are you going to primary? I went to Vance in Enid for mine.Matt

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:They've played with a few F-16 concepts over the years including a delta winged one back in the early 90's. It was faster, could carry more, but it was deemed that it would not be needed at the time. I think it should be re-visited.

Originally Posted By valheru21:Why is everyone so scared to build a new airframe?!? The super hornet is a great airplane, but we do NOT need to make a habit of "supering" all of our existing airframes - that will lead to technical and tactical stagnation. Matt

It's not a matter of being scared to build a new airframe. It's a matter of not pouring money into a new airframe that offers no significant advantages over the airframes in service now. If there is significant advantages over, say, the SuperBug, then by all means produce it.

The really funny thing about the original article? They're using the F-35 to replace the F-111, and they're worried about the F-35's ability to mix it up with Su-27s? Like the old Aardvark could win an A2A with a Sukhoi.

The Ardvaark wouldn't have need to go A2A… it was faster than the speed o' heat! The F-35 is many things, but 'fast' is not one of them.

It doesn't need to be fast. The F4 was faster than it needed to be - there is such a thing as "too fast," unless you're trying to bug. With today's weapons and digital flight controls, that isn't much of an option anyway.

F-111 pilots I have spoken with in the past reckon nothing could catch them on the deck.

Unfortunately, that still leaves a live flanker. I'd rather kill it and then run away than simply run away from it.Matt

A friend of mine who is a Lt. Col in the USAF who currently flys 16 said that when he was flying in the older F-111s that he came damn near close to mach III in one and the paint pealed off the leading edge of the swing wings after the run. He said it was under rated in speed intentially by the DOD. He was also involved with the bombing of Sadaams palace in GW1 with the bunker buster bomb that was made out of gun barrel from a Iowa Class battleship